Amnesties are a common feature in peace negotiations. Since the end of the Second World War, 45% of all bargained solutions to conflict included an amnesty provision (Binningsbø et al., 2012:732). Even though it is such a common feature in modern conflicts, the research on amnesties in relation to peace is surprisingly scarce (ibid:732). Most scholars have studied the legality of amnesties, their legal implications, and their relation to human rights and democracy (Olsen et al., 2012; Bell, 2008; Freeman & Pensky, 2012). During recent years, a debate has sparked between peacemakers and human rights advocates within the transitional justice literature regarding the justifiability of amnesties as a tool in peace negotiations. The debate is commonly referred to as the peace v. justice debate (Sonnenberg & Cavallaro, 2012). Although several scholars have contributed to the debate, no consensus on if and how amnesties are beneficial for peacebuilding has been established. This paper will contribute to the debate by testing a newly developed theory in a comparative study, and strives to answer the question How do different types of amnesties affect prospects of peace?
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-313022 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Schönning, Beatrice |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för freds- och konfliktforskning |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds